SIGMA 12-24MM F4.5-5.6 AF ZOOM vs SIGMA 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC

[ClickClick]

12-24 approx $699
10-20 approx $489

Going on a Rebel XT cam.

Anyone tried one or either of these? Feedback?

(anyone care to post shots taken with them?)

[Tee Why]

10-20 would be the choice for me unless you intend to upgrade to FF soon as it's cheaper, wider, a bit faster, and sharper.

[FlashZebra]

Here are nice test reports on both with pics:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...4556/index.htm

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len..._456/index.htm

Enjoy! Lon

[verty]

Originally Posted by Tee Why

10-20 would be the choice for me unless you intend to upgrade to FF soon as it's cheaper, wider, a bit faster, and sharper.

does this lens only work on the 350d??
what about the 5d??

[LightRules]

Originally Posted by verty

does this lens only work on the 350d??
what about the 5d??

It is designed for 1.6x bodies. It will vignette up to about 16mm or so on a FF.

[FloridaCamera]

I love my 10-20, it is by far my favorite lens. The field of view is nothing short of amazing.

[Broncosaurus]

I just ordered the 10-20 EX after reading everything I could find on these two lenses. On a crop format, the 10-20mm has better reported performance all around. I do wish it had the same bulbous Popeye objective lens as the 12-24mm though. I think it looks cool.

[LightRules]

Originally Posted by Broncosaurus

I do wish it had the same bulbous Popeye objective lens as the 12-24mm though. I think it looks cool.

It might look "cool", but it's much more prone to scratches and can't use front filters. Enjoy your UWA.

[olz]

My vote goes to Tokina 12-24mm f/4 after trying both sigmas and the canon. DOF is amazing and so is build quality. The extra cost of the Sigmas and the Canon was not worth it in my oppinion. Only thing that favours the sigma is full-frame support if you plan to upgrade.

Tokina has taken me by surprise. I'm looking forward to see if their 16-50mm f/2.8 matches the 12-24mm in overall build and picture quality. If so, I'll be in line!

[ClickClick]

thanks a ton guys (and gals). I guess the 10-20 is it then.

[syntrix]

Originally Posted by ClickClick

thanks a ton guys (and gals). I guess the 10-20 is it then.

That's what I chose~!

I think this was actually the first shot I took with it:
http://www.lasvegastech.com/ar_pics/pinnacle_2.jpg

[ClickClick]

last question... is there anything that justifies spending the extra $200 for the other lens? I mean, it isn't that much of focal distance difference to warrant such a price jump.

[Billginthekeys]

the ONLY thing the 12-24 has is that it can be used on full frame cameras. thats it

[olz]

In my oppinion there nothing that justifies the extra that the Sigma costs over the Tokina... But i guess I'm talking to the hand again like in my previous post I'm very pleased with my Sigma EX (telephoto). I like the finish and all the EX's that I've tried has been very well build.

You already decided on the 10-20mm so why don't you just buy it and enjoy the fine pictures that it undoubtably produces.

[Bubble]

Originally Posted by Billginthekeys

the ONLY thing the 12-24 has is that it can be used on full frame cameras. thats it

much heavier too. I sold my 12-24 for 10-20.